Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry, not attacking in the sense of being abusive or anything. However, your immediate reaction was to assume I was trying to undermine the LLW and therefore, instead of reading my posts carefully, you immediately went into the mode of defending your position and trying to undermine mine rather than engaging with the substance of what I was saying.


Perphas saying that some on this thread have a strong defensive attitude towards the issue would be a better choice of words.


Eitherway, I think this issue is so much larger than the Picture House, continuing to discuss it here is really hijacking a thread meant to spread information about a new facility in the area.

I sort of agree about "singling out the picture house isn't fair" thing btw - but then again teh thread IS about the picture house and their staff have recently gone on strike on the matter, so it's germaine to the discussion. But on the wider topic we can assume we are also talking about other companies I guess

I just looked at the pay scales for my employer (a London Local Authority), and the bottom scale pays out in incriments as follows.


7.9078

7.9701

8.0388

8.1874

8.4016

8.6110

8.7644

8.8683 MAX


So you'd have to be in that job a while to work your way up to the top of the scale and hit ?8.80.


I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS RIGHT!!!!!!


But if a local authority aren't paying LLW, this illustrates just how pointless it is banging on about Picturehouse.


Edit because the data all came out funny.

Okay, fair enough SJ, I am not always very clear.



My point / position is that it is difficult to pay an individual more than the value they contribute to your business. Therefore any strategy to increase low-skilled workers wages should involve increasing their skills over time. The economy still has shortages of various types of skilled labor and this needs rebalancing. This has to be part of the broader discussion on the LLW.


My other point, is that unskilled jobs that pay a lower wage have a genuine roll to play in the economy, particularly for younger employees. Of the circa 16% of employees earning below the LLW, it would be interesting to see how many of them are students. Given how young London?s population is, 16%-20% doesn?t strike me as terribly high. This becomes a more significant issue of course, if young unskilled workers remain in unskilled work for life.


My last point concerns increasing wages as a matter of law. The research on this is mixed but there is growing evidence that in certain circumstances minimum wage increases can be positive for the wider economy including job creation and lifting people out of poverty. However, when done without analyzing the impact it will have on business, it can result in spiraling inflation, job losses (particularly amongst the unskilled) and business closures. There are independent bodies both in the US and the UK that exist solely to assess this and advise government. Any increase in the minimum wage will result in some job cuts and closures in certain businesses but if enough businesses can absorb the increase via either cutting higher wage earners salaries, increasing prices moderately, increasing the productivity of low skilled workers etc, the net impact can be neutral on total employment as the increased spending power of low wage workers tends to stimulate growth faster than other segments of the population resulting in jobs growth. To simplify this point?forcing a minimum salary on the economy / London has to be done very carefully for it to be a net positive for low wage workers and the economy as a whole.

Otta


In the pay scales you attached, is there any element of London Weighting (often paid by public bodies) and if not, what would LW do to change these scales? When I worked for public bodies London Weighting and the basic pay scale were separate, as they were not increased in step with each other. Often LW was a lump sum increment, paid regardless of grade (and so of more relative value to the low paid).

LM wrote: "My point / position is that it is difficult to pay an individual more than the value they contribute to your business."


More than the value they contribute? The Ritzy workers contribute enormous value. How would Picturehouse get their tickets checked or drinks served at the bar or the premises cleaned ready for the next batch of cinema-goers without these workers who are not even being paid a living wage?


Do you really think businesses in this economic climate, especially small businesses, would employ anyone who wasn't vital to their business? Everyone has a part to play to enable a business to exist never mind prosper. It's just that when profits are made, the owners or shareholders forget this.

"Therefore any strategy to increase low-skilled workers wages should involve increasing their skills over time"


I'm not sure this makes sense does it? You increase your value by going up the career ladder, but this is a hierarchichal thing, there simply can't be positions for everyone higher up the chain as they all get older.


"Picturehouse programming director, Clare Binns, ... who worked her way up from an usher at the Brixton Ritzy" must surely be the exception amongst her ex usher peers.


In theory it'd be nice if people got paid more for increased experience, seniority in the literal rather than hierarchical sense of the word, but we know in low/unskilled professions this isn't really the case.


I've spent my entire career at the coalface, but am fortunate that it's an industry that pays well to begin with and my seniority has risen with experience, not responsibility, but professional erm professions aren't exactly the issue here.


So in reality doesn't society, well shareholders, depend on the work force not increasing its value in any way?


In fact given the levels of youth unemployment it would seem that older more experienced staff are being kept on at low wages rather than being replaced with cheap inexperienced youngsters.


Sorry, just musing really.


*edited for shameless grocers apostrophe

Beddug, I simply mean that if the cost of employing someone is unprofitable, a business cannot afford to do it. Not everyone contributes more than the LLW to the earnings of the company they are employed for. The fact that a business may not be able to run without them is irrelevant and staff costs can cause a business to close or fail.


Similarly, when certain low-skilled work becomes too expensive, the cost- benefit of using technology tips in favor of technology, which results in low-skilled jobs being lost. Collecting your ticket only from a machine and installing ticket scanners with security gates for example could reduce the need for certain low-skilled jobs in a cinema.




buddug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM wrote: "My point / position is that it is

> difficult to pay an individual more than the value

> they contribute to your business."

>

> More than the value they contribute? The Ritzy

> workers contribute enormous value. How would

> Picturehouse get their tickets checked or drinks

> served at the bar or the premises cleaned ready

> for the next batch of cinema-goers without these

> workers who are not even being paid a living wage?

>

>

> Do you really think businesses in this economic

> climate, especially small businesses, would employ

> anyone who wasn't vital to their business?

> Everyone has a part to play to enable a business

> to exist never mind prosper. It's just that when

> profits are made, the owners or shareholders

> forget this.

Otta


Thanks for that clarification - and I would guess that many paid on these low scales would not, in fact, be full-time employees - these look like unskilled wages, which are often part-time or short-hours jobs (such as cleaning).


Of course, depending upon the terms of the contract, if part-time the staff member might also do another job as well, but probably at a similar low wage.

Given the "flexibility" of staff on these wage levels (plus zero hours contracts), isn't it just tempting for many businesses to say they can't pay LWW. Just as Amazon says it pays all the tax it's legally required to?


All legal of course, but not exactly ideal

Cineworld had ?31 million of profit last year. I think they can afford it.


And on a wider scale, an increase in pay also leads to wider societal benefits: people have more money to spend - it stimulates the local economy; people have to claim less or no additional benefits resulting in a lower tax burden; staff are more likely to be loyal to the employer resulting in fewer costly recruitment processes, training, etc.

"Like most businesses care about ideal."


well this is it Otta - historically, most of thr 20th century had some link between business and social goals. that has been eroding for the past few decades and is reaching a tipping point


And it's not just a bunch of lefty liberals wringing their hands over this - in last few days we have had head of IMF and the Bank of England talking about the disconnect


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/27/carnney-lagarde-city-primeval-will-survive


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/27/capitalism-critique-bank-of-england-carney

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Given the "flexibility" of staff on these wage

> levels (plus zero hours contracts), isn't it just

> tempting for many businesses to say they can't pay

> LWW. Just as Amazon says it pays all the tax it's

> legally required to?

>

> All legal of course, but not exactly ideal



Yes, of course. However, job losses and business closures do occur every time the minimum wage increases. However, job creation also takes place when the rate is set correctly . Clearly some firms cannot pay the higher wage and they fail. The trick when increasing the legal minimum wage is to make sure not too many are in that position given based on the size of the increase.


The firms least able to pay are those for whom the product they sell has elastic demand (meaning people are very price sensitive and will stop using it if prices go up), where a large portion of their employees are affected (for Goldman Sachs who do pay the LLW, only a small fraction of their workforce is unskilled and they can spread the increased cost of these limited number of employees through very small reductions in other staff costs or other efficiency gains) or when it?s impossible for the employees to become more productive (ie increasing targets etc which can happen after a hike in the min wage).


How large the increase is plays a role in how many businesses will find the change unsustainable without layoffs or closing all together.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Since you’re clearly not experiencing what we are I’m not sure I agree with any of your points. I also asked for anyone else having a similar problem… it’s absolutely fine if you’re not but I’d appreciate less of the “go live your life”. There is no need to comment with that tone, it doesn’t provide us with any help for the matter. Nor is it polite. We’re a very kind family simply not wanting damage and don’t find the actions necessary. It’s been the same driver/delivery for a while and this never used to happen. I wouldn’t post this on the forum if it wasn’t getting so frustrating. Again, the kids and myself have kindly asked for this to stop a few times with no success. We all work hard for our living and would never want (nor are we trying) to rid someone of their livelihood. But similarly, I don’t find it fair. Please feel free to PM me if anyone has any advise or shares the same.  
    • And now we have the worst labour government in many many decades who by moving to your position on the right are ushering in a far right reform government. Well done you.
    • You implied he did a good job in your first paragraph when you said you would have hated to see Corbyn lead the country through Covid - the alternative being Johnson, presumably? With the results we all saw. Unite - you have a problem with unions? Who work hard to see that their members get a fair deal in their workplace? How exactly are these people and groups "all as bad as each other"? In what way? Labour "purging their party of the far-left" has given us a weak prime minister who has apparently deserted any "left" (aka caring for other people and having decent moral principles) leanings he ever had. Which is why people appear to be leaving Labour in droves and voting, or intending to vote, Green or Lib Dem or for an independent Left candidate. Starmer has shot himself in the foot, in my opinion. But what would I know. What worked?! I don't know enough about what you are talking about to comment, but "believing" you know the reason someone did something does not make it true. I don't believe that Corbyn ever got "starstruck" or "forgot about his politics", but if you can provide evidence that those things are true, then fair enough. I don't think you can, though.
    • I think you need to get a grip If it's who I am thinking of, she's a young black girl in her twenties, has braids with bright colours through them and - I suspect - works with her father. It's always the same man behind the wheel and he's older than her, always in the same van, so I'm assuming it's a father-daughter combo which, if it is, I think is rather sweet.  They hustle hard in a job that is poorly paid, has little prospects, is relentless and thankless. The fact that they have stuck it out since the pandemic says a lot about them.  I think she's a lovely girl, who's perhaps a little shy - but she'll smile or chat back if you make the effort with her. And I admire her for sticking with that job for so long. Perhaps she's just one of these people who's naturally a bit clumsy or bashes things, the same way some people are heavy on their feet when they walk. But I wouldn't dream of jeopardising her job because she closes the slams the gate and doesn't 'kiss' the ring doorbell with her fingers.  Perhaps she's being passive aggressive because you are. And perhaps she also wishes she got to spend her time worrying about potential damage to her letterbox or her gate.  As for your gate / letterbox - you're talking about hypotheticals. Has there been any damage? No. Then go and live your life and worry about it when it happens.  (apols we have the wrong person, but some of my points still stand). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...